In the case of Somjeet Mallick vs. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court, in a judgment dated October 14, 2024, tended to a criminal request emerging from a debate over a truck rental assention. The appealing party, Somjeet Mallick, had entered into an assention with the blamed to lease out his truck on a month to month premise. Although the denounced paid the primary month's lease, they fizzled to form encourage installments, coming about in back payments of ₹12,49,780. When rehashed demands for installment were disregarded, Somjeet recorded a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which led to the enrollment of an FIR.
Amid the investigation, despite summonses issued under Section 41A of the CrPC, the blamed fizzled to seem, provoking the issuance of non-bailable warrants. In any case, the blamed drawn nearer the High Court of Jharkhand looking for to suppress the FIR and ensuing proceedings. The High Court acknowledged their supplication, thinking that the matter was fundamentally of a gracious nature which no criminal offense had been committed under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court ruled that the appealing party ought to seek after gracious cures for the recuperation of levy.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's conclusion. It ruled that when quashing a FIR, the court must accept the claims at face value in order to evaluate if there is a prima facie case for investigation. The Court underlined that nonpayment of rent combined with misleading guarantees could indicate dishonest behavior, perhaps establishing a case of criminal breach of trust. Because the inquiry was not complete and the location of the truck was unclear, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration, allowing the investigation to continue.
This decision emphasizes the significance of avoiding dismissing criminal cases prematurely, particularly where charges indicate the possibility of a cognizable offense.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Supreme Court Shingara Singh vs. Daljit Singh doctrine of lis pendens specific performance property dispute bona fide purchaser sale agreement Transfer of Property Act Section 52.
